gop to filibuster scotus nominee

manu1959

Left Coast Isolationist
Oct 28, 2004
13,761
1,652
48
california
obstructionist bastards...........

Obama joins filibuster bid against Alito: But senator criticizes tactic, says it will fail. | Article from Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL) | HighBeam Research

Jan. 30--WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama said he would vote Monday to filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, but he conceded the effort would be futile and criticized Democrats for failing to persuade Americans to take notice of the court's changing ideological face.

"The Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," Obama (D-Ill.) said Sunday on ABC News' "This Week." "These last-minute efforts--using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway--I think has been the wrong way of going about it."

:lol:
 
A story from January 30th, 2006? ... :confused:

the story is about obma and company trying to obstruct a bush nominee.....shortly the tables will be turned and everyone will cry foul and lament how evil the gop is....

politics is the best soap opera on tv.....
 
The Rs will find some cloudy and obscure rule to get around being filibuster proof.
 
Actually this will be a non-issue. Barry will nominate a person of minority of one sort or another. That person will be pushed through, and it still won't change the make up of the US Supreme Court. Bush got his people through, and so will Barry.
 
Need 40 to fillibuster, GoP douchebags haven't got the numbers.

Why Lindsey Graham is the Guy Obama Needs to Please in Replacing Souter - Swampland - TIME.com

Both sides of the aisle spent all week lamenting/celebrating Arlen Specter's party switch and the potential for a 60 vote Democratic majority in the Senate. But Specter's swap leaves the Senate Judiciary Committee without its most prominent GOP moderate. In any other committee that wouldn't matter but in the Judiciary Committee one minority vote is needed to report out nominees to the bench, from the committee's rules:

IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTE

The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.​
The current Republican Judiciary Committee members are: Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn (Roll Call is reporting that Hatch or Session -- both conservatives -- are Specter's potential successors for the ranking slot). Most of these Republicans are pretty conservative save Graham, who was a member of the Gang of 14 which, you may remember, came up with the solution to avoid the nuclear option on judges. If Obama comes up with a nominee opposed by the right, Graham will be under a lot of pressure to block the appointment -- esentially an insurmountable committee filibuster. Rahm may want to put Graham's # on speed dial.

.
 
obstructionist bastards...........

Obama joins filibuster bid against Alito: But senator criticizes tactic, says it will fail. | Article from Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL) | HighBeam Research

Jan. 30--WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama said he would vote Monday to filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, but he conceded the effort would be futile and criticized Democrats for failing to persuade Americans to take notice of the court's changing ideological face.

"The Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," Obama (D-Ill.) said Sunday on ABC News' "This Week." "These last-minute efforts--using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway--I think has been the wrong way of going about it."

:lol:

:lol:

What is most surprising to me is that Obama's teleprompter actually did some work while he was a junior Senator.
 
obama is a walking hypocrite, then again, the vast majority of dems are so no one notices...

cracks me up that jillian is so partisan she can't even understand this thread
 
of course jillian wouldn't understand it.....LOL

she frequently only writes

idiot

in response to my posts or threads, so i thought maybe she must be like really smart and stuff because she can defeat my whole argument with like one word and stuff and that one word like shows how i'm an idiot and how like smart she is

my bad
 
I don't think the GOP has the numbers to pull off a filibuster, but even if they did they'd be vilified if the nominee was a person of color. I think whoever gets the nomination will breeze through confirmation unless the cons can find some dirt.
 
of course jillian wouldn't understand it.....LOL

she frequently only writes

idiot

in response to my posts or threads, so i thought maybe she must be like really smart and stuff because she can defeat my whole argument with like one word and stuff and that one word like shows how i'm an idiot and how like smart she is

my bad

IDIOT!

Oh, sorry. My bad. :eusa_angel:
 
I don't think the GOP has the numbers to pull off a filibuster, but even if they did they'd be vilified if the nominee was a person of color. I think whoever gets the nomination will breeze through confirmation unless the cons can find some dirt.

Correct, i predict any Republican that opposes will be demonized as a racist and/or sexist. It's the left wing way.....
 
Wait a minute guys!

The point of the thread is not that the GOP will filibuster the nomination, but rather that when they begin their squawking against whichever nominee the President chooses there will be liberals claiming that they are obstructionists. Those very same liberals will have conveniently forgotten that they backed "obstructionist" Democrats eight years ago. Oh wait, the Democrats weren't obstructionist, they simply were exercising their right to have a say in who would be allowed to sit on the highest bench in the land.

A story from January 30th, 2006? ... :confused:

the story is about obma and company trying to obstruct a bush nominee.....shortly the tables will be turned and everyone will cry foul and lament how evil the gop is....

politics is the best soap opera on tv.....

Immie
 
A story from January 30th, 2006? ... :confused:

the story is about obma and company trying to obstruct a bush nominee.....shortly the tables will be turned and everyone will cry foul and lament how evil the gop is....

politics is the best soap opera on tv.....

See, I read your opening line, and then searched your post in vain for any evidence supporting your assertion. To date, I'm still waiting for that evidence.
 
Wait a minute guys!

The point of the thread is not that the GOP will filibuster the nomination, but rather that when they begin their squawking against whichever nominee the President chooses there will be liberals claiming that they are obstructionists. Those very same liberals will have conveniently forgotten that they backed "obstructionist" Democrats eight years ago. Oh wait, the Democrats weren't obstructionist, they simply were exercising their right to have a say in who would be allowed to sit on the highest bench in the land.

A story from January 30th, 2006? ... :confused:

the story is about obma and company trying to obstruct a bush nominee.....shortly the tables will be turned and everyone will cry foul and lament how evil the gop is....

politics is the best soap opera on tv.....

Immie

And the Republicans who were calling the Democrats obstructionists will suddenly forget that they were once admonishing such tactics.

And the green grass grows all around and around.
And the green grass grows all around.

:gives:
 

Forum List

Back
Top